[February 27, 2014]We
talk about morality and character in our country and expect it to be
present in the people we do business with and friends, family and
associates with whom we interact. We simply take it for granted that
people should tell the truth simply as a matter of living their
lives. Telling the truth builds integrity and reputation. We seek
out those whose reputation is such as to lead us to believe they
will not cheat us when we hire them for a job or pay them money for
a project around our homes. We take our cars to a garage where the
reputation for honesty is known far and wide since we don’t want to
be “taken” when we get to the bottom line. We depend on truth every
day of our lives.

A couple of weeks ago the Afghanistan President released about 65
prisoners who had been linked with killing Americans and had been
linked with terrorist activities. The U.S. military said that some
of those men who were released were linked to attacks that wounded
or killed 32 American or coalition members.

The President of Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai, has repeatedly
criticized the United States for not supporting the release ...of
the prisoners. Karzi stated, "Afghanistan is a sovereign country. If
the Afghan authorities decide to release a prisoner, it is of no
concern to the U.S. and should be of no concern to the U.S. And I
hope that the United States would stop harassing Afghanistan's
procedures and judicial authority and I hope that the United States
will now begin to respect Afghan sovereignty."

The President has now sent orders to the Pentagon for the Joint
Chiefs of Staff to establish a plan to remove all US forces from
Afghanistan by the end of the year. Perhaps that is a wise thing to
do, but is it sending a signal to the rest of the world we may not
be able to work effectively with world leaders, and they too should
turn their negotiating attention to terrorist avowed enemies of
America? We are not only experiencing a military withdrawal from the
region; we are also being told the Administration wants to weaken
the strength of the US military across the board.

Given the world climate with the Middle East regarding Egypt, Syria,
Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, along with the issues in
Ukraine and Russia, coupled with the tensions in North Korea,
nations with organized political government structures, is it a wise
consideration for Chuck Hagel and President Obama to make plans to
reduce the military down to pre-WWII levels of between 440,000 to
450,000? This does not even consider a world-wide effort on the part
of terrorist organizations that have the Western world in their
sniper sites, ready for destruction any way they can. In addition to
the reduction, the plans also include reducing the salary of those
who remain on active duty.

If the major function of the federal government is protection of US
citizens, does this plan seem the most prudent for accomplishing
that task? If we have indeed lost the respect of leaders from other
countries around the world, is this action an appeasement to them,
or somehow in the perspective of our own leadership’s thinking, a
new type of position of power?

As the Administration is making plans to reduce the size and
strength of America’s military by cutting the fighting force to
pre-WWII levels, I wonder if that decision has been made as part of
any study depicting what countries that are traditional enemies of
America are doing to their military structure.

While the Administration reduces the military in the US, is there
any other major industrial nation that is also reducing the size and
strength of their military? Notwithstanding those countries that are
currently fighting among themselves or engaging in some kind of
civil war, are any other countries like Russia, China or North Korea
reducing their military? Does the Administration expect those
countries will sit on the sidelines and not engage once they are
convinced the US military is sufficiently weakened?

Does the Administration believe the democracies around the world
that depend on America’s leadership and strength will not be
impacted by the Administration’s weakening of our military? Even if
the other military powers in the world hold back on their frontal
attack on America, does the Administration think those same powers
will refrain from engaging in their own empire building activities
in much the same way as Germany did in the early 1930’s?

You know, back to President Hamid Karzai’s thinking, he might be
onto something. We should respect Afghan’s sovereignty by taking all
our money, materials, troops, expertise, nation-building and all
other resources out of his country and bring it all home. We have
spent over a trillion dollars there and perhaps it is time to turn
off the cash flow and quit spending national treasure and spilling
precious American blood in a country that favors terrorism over
justice. Instead of reducing our forces to pre-WWII levels, perhaps
we could use that money from backing out of Karzai’s Afghan to build
up our own military to protect us from the aggression of others who
are salivating for our destruction.

Of course, what might be closer to reality with this Administration
may be a completely different motive. I wonder if the decision to
weaken the military by taking funding from American’s defense is not
predicated upon the assumption the money is more needed for the
welfare-state activities this Administration favors over the
security of the nation.